Look, I don't want to be grouchy but most of those "similarities" are actually huge differences, especially when you consider the distance from the US median. 94 v 85 white is quite significant. Same with the 48k vs 42k per year in salary (that's a 14% difference).

And this sentence is wrong: "More people in Washington have bachelors degrees, 27% for us vs. 21% for Iowans, but only 6-percent more." You mean 6 "percentage points" more. WA has about 33% percent more bachelors degrees per capita than Iowa.

You keep up this kind of commie talk and the next thing you know black people will be electing a President

The worst thing about Iowa's stranglehold on American politics is the absurd devotion to Big Corn that it causes. Our ag policy and our energy policy are both hopelesssly screwed, and it's Iowa's fault.

What you really need to do is investigate how many times the number 23 comes up when you look at Iowa's numbers.

Out of the total population of "things" or factoids about Iowa and Washington, how many would you have expected were similar? Did you decide which statistics you would examine between Iowa and Washington ahead of time? Or did you start comparing numbers, skipping those that didn't match and making careful note of those that do, until you came up with a sufficiently convincing list?

And really. The non-white population of Iowa is 6%. Here it is 15%.

This is just sad.

Bachelor's degrees does not mean smarter. Plus, they know how to drive in Iowa.

@1:

Regarding the bachelors degree numbers, that was poorly worded and I rewrote the sentence. Thanks.

Regarding everything else (and the comments probably to come), the point wasn't to justify Iowa's overtly powerful political position, the point was to show that Washington isn't demographically that far removed from Iowa voters. But your moral indignation and accusation of intellectual dishonesty are noted, elenchos.

Hey not to bust any bubbles or detract that that 2008 will be the same.
what comes to my mind about this election is i hope it is deos not play out like the 'Battle for Ohio' did in 2004 between Kerry and Bush.
There is an excellent documentary on cable that showed the deep down truth of what goes on and why Bush won and Kerry lost. same old history we have heard it all before, but will we learn. Keep doing the same all routine and you'll end up like that campaigner did in that documentary. Tearing his hair out by the roots and crying how the system is screwed. Maybe if people would demand and alternative so states like Miami and Ohio, and now Iowa will not bust your hopes and dreams to get an Democrat into the whitehouse.
Just like they say on some articles and comments in the NFL. Home page.
"Any states west of the Mississippi
just don't register as America."
It is like they still think we are still part of Mexico. Now that sentiment is spreading to even the central United States.
And that word United next to states is so much hoooey these days it unfathomable.
My point is I see another Ohio. though i will still get out and vote even though I know by next December
the great demigogues of the United states will have their new 'messiah' in the white house to save us all from
Gay Marriage, border crossers, and a new spin on all the recent violence going on in our country as being the Democrats fault and how they will take away everyones right to defend themselves. Kerry wasn't prepared to come down to the middleman and farmer appeal of those battleground states.
he faultered at the attacks. and the corruption and voting cockblockers that kept the blacks in long lines in ohio during that night was just outrageous.
It'll surely happen again and again.

if nothing else, all this crowing and head scratching from urban elitists is at least entertaining.

wait, "states like miami"? am i reading that right?

sorry forgot to edit in word.

Hey not to bust any bubbles or detract that that 2008 will be the same.
What comes to my mind about this election is I hope it is does not play out like the 'Battle for Ohio' did in 2004 between Kerry and Bush.
There is an excellent documentary on cable that showed the deep down truth of what goes on and why Bush won and Kerry lost. Same old history we have heard it all before, but will we learn. Keep doing the same routine and you'll end up like that campaigner did in that documentary. Tearing his hair out by the roots and crying how the system is screwed. Maybe if people would demand and alternative so states like Miami and Ohio, and now Iowa will not bust your hopes and dreams to get a Democrat into the Whitehouse.
Just like they say on some articles and comments in the NFL Home page.
"Any states west of the Mississippi
just don't register as America."
It is like they still think we are still part of Mexico. Now that sentiment is spreading to even the central United States.
And that word United next to states is so much hooey these days it unfathomable.
My point is I see another Ohio. though i will still get out and vote even though I know by next December
the great demagogues of the United states will have their new 'messiah' in the white house to save us all from
Gay Marriage, border crossers, and a new spin on all the recent violence going on in our country as being the Democrats fault and how they will take away everyone’s right to defend themselves. Kerry wasn't prepared to come down to the middleman and farmer appeal of those battleground states.
He faltered at the attacks. And the corruption and voting cockblockers that kept the blacks in long lines in Ohio during that night was just outrageous.
It'll surely happen again and again.

Jesus, don't post it AGAIN. And don't edit Slog comments in Word.

In Washington, we're not a wholly owned subsidiary of Archer-Daniels-Midland?

Jesus, sorry Fnarf. Any way what do you think about all this?

Yes, NapoleonXIV, but it's not Washington State that's driving the ethanol fiasco or the trillions we've given ADM and Cargill in counterproductive ag subsidies. It's Iowa corn.

#1 is right... this post could have basically been written this way:

Iowa is so different than Washington!

-Washington has twice the population of Iowa (5,894,121 vs 2,926,324)

-Washington has 27% more elderly people per capita

-Washingtonians make 14% more by median income

-Washingtonians have 28% more college degree holders per capita than Iowa

- There are 114,000 more unemployeed people in Washingoton State

---

I see where you're coming from (and I don't disagree), but trying to play with statistics is a double edge sword.

There are a lot of differences that statistics can't demonstrate. As a former survivor of the Midwest I can assure you that there are major cultural differences--some subtle, some smack-you-upside-the-head obvious.

Wow two states in the same country aren't hugely different. What a shocker!

I guess if you compared Washington to Mississippi you could see some larger disparities but as a whole you aren't going to see gigantic percentage differences for most places. It's not like comparing a developed country with a third world one.

This post was pretty pointless.

I think this post misses a key factor. It's not just the demographics of Iowa as a state that are a sticking point for people, but their bizzaro caucus system. According to George Mason University's US Elections Project (http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004_Primaries.htm), only about 6 percent of the voting-eligible population showed up to caucus in the past two election cycles. In 2000, the last year without an incumbent, that 6 percent was fairly evenly divided among the Democratic and Republican primaries. This means that about 3% of Iowa's voters have a hugely disproportionate amount of influence over our electoral politics. The argument could be made that this three percent is more dedicated, more informed, and therefore more equipped to be making this decision. But, alternately, you could say that the hours-long caucusing process shuts out the voices of all but the most partisan of citizens. Additionally, I believe I've read that actual caucus-goers are overwhelmingly white and upper-middle class. I don't have specific evidence to point to on that, though, and if anyone can prove otherwise, please do.

Heck, CA, OR, and WA among ourselves are something like 40 percent of the US economy.

And yet ... we get zilch for electoral college votes.

The misinterpretation and misunderstanding of statistical data in this posting is pretty embarrassing. Is the intern a high school student?

I have yet to hear *why* this is good for democracy. And spare me the typical prattle about how the people of New Hampshire and Iowa take their role seriously. It's just bullshit, and in a modern liberal democracy, it shouldn't be an institution.

right on bma

Jesus Christ, Will, where do you get this stuff? CA+WA+OR is about SIXTEEN percent of the US economy, not forty.

You're right, the state of Iowa, with 3 million, is a lot like our state, with 6M...when you take away WA's one big metro area! (then the education, income, and whiteness will be similar)

...and Ichiro has almost the same batting average as richie Sexton, just .105 difference!

@21 - no, we export, the rest of the states on the whole don't. So we bring in the bacon, the rest of the states just eat the bacon we brought it.

Now, would you like a normalized or tailed distribution with that?

You are a total moron, Will.

#16 brings up another similarity between Washington and Iowa. Both states have "a bizarro caucus system". Even better is that in Washington we pay for a primary election whose result has no effect on the selection Democratic candidate anyways since the caucuses are all that matter.

I think the biggest thing that everyone is missing is that if you took the Seattle Metro area out of Washington, WA would be pretty much the same as IA. That was the point of the post.

We've got people of color, money, college degrees, and, well, diversity here in Seattle. Heck, we even tend to vote liberally. (Don't quote me on that, though... After this last election, I don't know what's-what anymore.)

Get outside Seattle, though, and WA is actually might be MORE white/conservative/whatever-thing-you-think-IA-is than IA actually is...

While the fact that some wierdo middle America state basically chooses the candidates for us is fucked up, the point is that the people choosing... Well, they're not all that different from us. ("US" being WA, not "US" being us here in Seattle...)

It's true, 27. Having spent many years in both Iowa and Washington, I've noted that Iowa is less conservative than Washington without the Seattle metro area. Iowa is a quiet place with its own mind (save for its over-reliance on soy and corn) that is not defined by a struggle for definition from an economically larger entity (as Eastern Washington does with Seattle.)